Who is the most evil character in the Dresdenverse?

[wardenferry419]

We have seen alot of baddies; but who is the worst of the worst.

[Vendrin]

Lara Raith, because as proven by Thomas, she has the capacity to choose something else.

[wardenferry419]

I think the special attention she gave to Madeline in TC was particularly disturbing.

[Kindler]

I picked Shaggy and Kemmler. Shaggy delights way too much in suffering for suffering's sake. And Kemmler, you know, started World War I. I also credit him for World War II in part, because it really set the stage for a sequel.

[Ananda]

What is 'evil'? How are you defining it? The most destructive to the universe as we know it is the Outsider force, obviously. If we're just going on sheer destructive capabilities, then this is the obvious answer. If you mean something else, then maybe there is another answer.

Also, I think there is a case to be made that Dresden is a dangerous and unstable figure in this universe. So far, he's been a sledgehammer on puppet strings for most of the series. I think that the council is not wrong to fear him and The Merlin may not have been too wrong to want him dead at certain points. It's Dresden's POV series, so we're meant to be most sympathetic towards him and his side of things, but we can also start to see patterns and that other people may not be wrong about him.

Depending on how much Butcher makes of this 'starborn' thingie, Dresden may be the biggest danger to the universe save the outsiders themselves (or itself, depending on if it is a single being).

[Arjan]

The outsiders most obviously because they aim the end of all reality. That means in this list those who help them. Cowl, Maeve,....

[RobReece]

What is 'evil'? How are you defining it? The most destructive to the universe as we know it is the Outsider force, obviously. If we're just going on sheer destructive capabilities, then this is the obvious answer. If you mean something else, then maybe there is another answer.

Also, I think there is a case to be made that Dresden is a dangerous and unstable figure in this universe. So far, he's been a sledgehammer on puppet strings for most of the series. I think that the council is not wrong to fear him and The Merlin may not have been too wrong to want him dead at certain points. It's Dresden's POV series, so we're meant to be most sympathetic towards him and his side of things, but we can also start to see patterns and that other people may not be wrong about him.

Depending on how much Butcher makes of this 'starborn' thingie, Dresden may be the biggest danger to the universe save the outsiders themselves (or itself, depending on if it is a single being).

dangerous and destructive doesn't equate to 'evil'

I think that I would define 'evil' as someone or something that puts his own desires above anyones or everyones best interests.
to put that tag on Nic, I think I'd have to know his final motivation and goals.  If he thinks that his is the only way to save the universe from the Outsiders... then I don't know if I would call him 'evil', maybe misguided and ruthless, but I don't know...

[Arjan]

Nicodemus was designed to be the evil counterpart of Michael who is he palladin of the story. Nicodemus is evil by design. He is as evil as Michael is good.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I think that I would define 'evil' as someone or something that puts his own desires above anyones or everyones best interests.

Like, you know, being willing to let the world burn to save his daughter?  (We have WoJ that Harry absolutely meant that at the time.)

Maybe it's a product of growing up in an environment with a very real threat of violence from ideological fanatics, but when I read that sequence, my sympathies were absolutely with the world.  It constantly bemuses me how many readers sympathise with Harry in that scene even when he is clearly saying "I consider you personally and all your loved ones acceptable collateral damage so long as I get what I care about" to everyone else in the world.  The people I have heard that from before have not been ones I could consider good or sympathetic.

[Arjan]

That is because protecting those near to you, especially your children, appeals to human nature far more than protecting all those nameless people we have too many of anyway.

Jim plays with our emotions which are driven by our instincts which are shaped by evolution. We maybe do not agree with someone who is prepared to let the world burn for their child, especially if we are going to burn, but a lot of us understand it.

Especially if we had a baby and went a little crazy because of it.

Also some of us probably tend to identify with the narrator while reading.

[wardenferry419]

What is 'evil'? How are you defining it? The most destructive to the universe as we know it is the Outsider force, obviously. If we're just going on sheer destructive capabilities, then this is the obvious answer. If you mean something else, then maybe there is another answer.

Also, I think there is a case to be made that Dresden is a dangerous and unstable figure in this universe. So far, he's been a sledgehammer on puppet strings for most of the series. I think that the council is not wrong to fear him and The Merlin may not have been too wrong to want him dead at certain points. It's Dresden's POV series, so we're meant to be most sympathetic towards him and his side of things, but we can also start to see patterns and that other people may not be wrong about him.

Depending on how much Butcher makes of this 'starborn' thingie, Dresden may be the biggest danger to the universe save the outsiders themselves (or itself, depending on if it is a single being).

I define "evil" within the Dresdenverse as being someone who has a complete and gleeful disregard or hatred of human lives.

[Ananda]

I define "evil" within the Dresdenverse as being someone who has a complete and gleeful disregard or hatred of human lives.

All human lives, or just some? If it’s just some, then I’m reminded of things like drone bombing areas in the middle east where innocent men, women and children are blown to bits on a regular basis, the fire bombing Dresden (the city) and so on. Warfare is full of purposeful civilian deaths. Are those things evil? Does glee have to be involved? Is disregard and dehumanising not enough?

And, only humans? What if someone had disregard for dogs and just went around killing them as much as possible? How about someone who make fearie skin sofas to sit on while drinking champagne from the tiny skulls? Are they evil? How about a person who enjoys killing animals at a slaughterhouse, or do we become utilitarian here because it’s approved?

Not trying to be difficult here, but the term “evil” gets used a lot and I never really know what it means to the person who used it as it’s not describing objective reality, but rather a perspective and everyone has a different perspective (even the same person has different perspectives from moment to moment depending on any number of variables).

To answer the question based on this definition, though, I’m not sure we can give a real assessment. The book is first person and limited to only what Dresden thinks others are thinking. If I were to guess which Dresden thinks is the worst, then I’d say the genoskwa or whatever it was called based on his reactions to and feelings about it.

Objectively, I still think the outsiders are the obvious choice for the most potential to be harmful with Dresden a possible second (depending on this “starborn” thingie).

[Blaze]

Jim Butcher.   I think maybe he is behind it all!

[jonas]

Jim Butcher.   I think maybe he is behind it all!

Ah ha!

[Ananda]

Like, you know, being willing to let the world burn to save his daughter?  (We have WoJ that Harry absolutely meant that at the time.)

Maybe it's a product of growing up in an environment with a very real threat of violence from ideological fanatics, but when I read that sequence, my sympathies were absolutely with the world.  It constantly bemuses me how many readers sympathise with Harry in that scene even when he is clearly saying "I consider you personally and all your loved ones acceptable collateral damage so long as I get what I care about" to everyone else in the world.  The people I have heard that from before have not been ones I could consider good or sympathetic.

:j I said, essentially, the same thing in a different thread a few weeks ago. While a dramatic thing to say, someone who would do something like that is the opposite of what civilisations need.